Google to Make Security Guards Employees, Rather Than Contractors | Hacker News Reader

Google to Make Security Guards Employees, Rather Than Contractors

blogs.wsj.com

257 pointsadidash144 comments

I think this is a good move.

I understand the tax incentives/accounting behind it, but I still feel it's kind of shady to hire "contractors" for positions that are indefinite. I think contractors should be for the time you need a bunch of hands or brains to get something done for a few months, but using contractors for years on end is just abuse of the system and demeaning for the person.

Who do you think is going to be more loyal and do a better job with your security, someone who always feels like an outsider, or someone who is protecting "their" own company?

I guess part of the rationale for using contractors for, say, kitchen workers is that you can use a consulting firm with expertise in catering, rather than having to develop that expertise in-house.

Or you could just hire a single person with domain expertise as a consultant for a given time to staff the group and end up with a presumably high-quality in-house kitchen staff from the start. The consultant moves onto their next gig after making sure the pieces fit as intended.

This is a pretty common use case for the better consultants out there.

I have to assume certain companies want to stay focused. This has many ramifications. E.g. if you're unhappy with the guards/cooks/cleaning - replacing that entire part of the organization is as easy as the contract makes it. If that operation is in-house - replacing employees, reforming, finding the talent to do that is much harder than window shopping for a competing third party to take over.

Should a water company have an in-house pipe factory?

Should a game dev company have in-house hardware fabrication?

Should a food factory have an in-house plastic packaging factory?

These questions don't have a clear answer in my opinion.

In most of your examples, the answer is no because of economies of scale; hardware fabrication only makes sense because of economies of scale (and to a lesser extent pipe or packaging production - although you could ask the same question about vertical integration all the way up the petrochemical supply chain to operating oil rigs and refineries).

Most game dev companies just aren't big enough to need enough hardware for vertical integration to make sense. Most water companies aren't big enough for a pipe factory to be economically viable, let alone building their own minerals division, oil rigs, oil refinery and chemical plants.

I suspect that security and running cafeterias do have economies of scale (e.g. a business might only need a drive-by check a few times a night, and so it is more efficient to have one guard drive around different businesses than for each business to hire their own guard), but Google's demands for security and cafeteria services are probably high enough that they gain many of the same benefits of the economy of scale.

Allowing management to focus on core competencies is also important for smaller businesses, but eventually most decision-making is delegated to middle managers or even subsidiary companies, so the top tier of management doesn't have to worry about it. For big companies like Google, it is likely that they have modelled it, and worked out it will cost them less to vertically integrate this function.

Businesses generally have far more efficient control over employees than contractors, so if they are unhappy with something, they can just change it rather than needing to renegotiate a contract.

It was a hypothetical and tangential case based on the parent comment, so let's get back to the original context where there is a more clear-cut conclusion.

When it comes to security, the accountability dynamic between personal investment in outcomes and the inherent detachment as an employee of a third party is a bit different than kitchen work, and significantly more important.

This arrangement works to the benefit of both Google and those responsible for securing the company.

Agreed I worked for large Telco and we had an office in Manchester cleaned out of PC's twice in year - turns out it was an inside job on of the outsourced security guards let them in.

I was involved in the replacement for the third time (we used all the old crap pc's we could dig up from across the company)

And given the high profile espionage that goes on in sv and tech having direct control and vetting of security guards makes sense.

Of course for the more secret squirrel side of the biz we always used different security - ask yourself when Bruce Scheier left BT note who he as very careful to be ltra nice to on the way out.

Over a certain size it starts to make sense to vertically integrate your business. If you are big, say Apple, creating your own hardware allows you to do better and differentiate against your competitors. It may also allow you to cut off resources for your competitors (see for example oil companies).

A company such as Valve is probably on the fence on this. They dominate a small segment of the market, but is not really big enough to do something their competitors can't replicate.

Or just buy a catering company. Annual profits in the billions leaves a company with no shortage of options.

They aren't using the independent contractor tax option (1099) to pay individuals, they are contracting a company that has employees.

This position would never pass as a 1099

- Who do you think is going to be more loyal

I think the person who knows for sure that he will be fired for not doing his job properly will be more loyal.

I don't think it is a wise decision for any company to employ security guards as they own employees. It makes much more sense to let a third company specialized in security recruit, train and contract guards to Google. Is Google in a better position to do background verification, recruit, train and maintain large number of security guards ? Is is a good way to spend their profits ? The answer might be yes or not but it has nothing to do with "demeaning for the person" and other rhetorical reasons.

I guess that depends on location. Personally, in the UK, I wouldn't dream of being a perm employee. Contract is the only way you can hire me.

You can't really say a company is deemening me by holding on to me as long as possible.

What are the advantages of contract work in the UK?

As others have commented, you trade the perception of job security for much higher pay and tax breaks. Companies will let you go when they no longer have work for you, but finding work isn't hard for someone resonably talented.

In IT? Buckets of money, and a ridiculously low tax rate. When I was contracting, I actually felt guilty at how little tax I was paying (about 9% effective, as opposed to about 30% typical for a wage).

Downside: binge-and-purge income (this is why I gave it up). Shitty work for shitty people - where there's muck there's brass, and where there's muck there's contractors cleaning out IT toilets that haven't been cleaned in years.

What is the rationale for the lower tax rate?

I'm mostly curious because in the US it is somewhat the opposite - employers are required to pay a tax for every employee, so if you are self-employed your tax rate actually goes up.

Because they pay your umbrella company, something something corporate magic.

I think the real reason is that the tax system is biased to the already well off.

yeah, you get the money out the umbrella company via dividends rather than salary.

As long as you can legally avoid some of the issues surrounding IR35 (taxation rule, not law, specifying who is a contractor and who is an employee) and know the rules about pay vs dividends you can pay significantly less tax.

A lot less even on an umbrella (akin to a w2) you make a lot more that a permanent employee. It always surprised me how poorly paid American contractors are relative to full timers.

One chap on Stack over flow seemed to think a 15% premium was a good deal id be looking for 50 - 100% - I looked at a 6 moth contract for Perl at companies house and at the day rate I would have gone in at £400) I would have been on £100k Gross and around 80K after Tax.

Probably less taxes.

Yes it is a nationwide scandal, in IT, media, even the civil service and the BBC. If it looks like an employee and quacks like an employee then it should be taxed like an employee.

No it is not a scandal and no I am not an employee. I have no expectation of ongoing work. I come in, I get going fast, I work efficiently and smartly and I leave when the project is done.

Very different ballgame to permanent employment. Permanent work also pays really badly as a rule.

As long as "when the project is done" is a reasonable length of time (ie. weeks or months, not years) then I'd say you're not quacking like an employee.

I don't think working efficiently and smartly is a good criterion for judging whether or not you quack like an employee.

Well given the standard of perm workers I've been around lately... it seems to be a different mindset and good contractors seem more aware they're there to get the job done.

YMMV of course. And yes, I tend to find six months is a good timespan, project dependent of course. I know there are contractors who hang around at places for years, that seems like something different.

No that was the contract for personnel services scam not IT contracting which is treated far less fairly than say accountants or lawyers.

In IT maybe, but those security guards are probably permanent employees of the firm that Google sub-contracted their security to. So reality they may just be moving from being a permanent employee of Acme Security Corp to that of Google.

It seems they get more benefits being a Google employee though (from TFA at least).

That exactly was my first thought...'What's in it for Google?'. Not doubting their good intentions, but whenever any corporate portrays an altruistic thing, it rings the skeptic bell in my head.

Good move Google.

I don't understand the downvote, because I can easily think of non-altruistic reasons for this move.

1) I have no doubt Google already tracks their contractors' staff turnover. Every industry has institutional knowledge, and if staff turnover is high, not enough of the knowledge gets transferred. If the prestige of being a Googler is enough to counter that trend, it may be well worth a lot more than the monetary cost.

2) Assuming the detail about "gbus" access is true, the security guards traveling on the buses will have personal incentives for keeping them safer.

3) This move may attract the kinds of people Google wants for their physical security. (Related to point #1.)

So while Google may well be riding the social awareness wave for PR purposes, there are bound to be real corporate reasons behind the move too.

You might find it also makes their stats look better ie % African American employees.

Don't be evil.*

*Unless it's profitable.

This is a cheap way to buy "token minority positions" and increase the appearance of diversity.

Its a smart, if somewhat cynical move.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/the-work...

"Blacks, who make up just 11 percent of the workforce, account for more than a third of home health aides and about 25 percent of both security guards and bus drivers—rather low paying jobs."

Part of the reason may be a PR thing - they want to improve their image so that there are less people, say, protesting their busses and employees.

Avoiding lawsuits for racial discrimination.

If you're suggesting what I think you are (that they're doing this for a bump in their diversity numbers) it should be noted their diversity report[1] breaks it down by tech and non-tech.

[1] http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html#tab=tech

non-tech black = 3%

black national % of security guards = 20%

every little bit helps I guess

Common sense suggests that this way should be cheaper, too. The contractor is often twice as expensive as their salary, so if you want them for an extended period of time it would make economic sense for a rational actor to hire directly.

This is however offset by economic realities, where two equal cost may have a very different impact of valuation. So it does make economic sense to pay more for a cost that is not counted as a fixed cost of doing business on the accounting sheets.

err these are minimum wage security guards employed by a contractor not self employed contractors in their own right

And the contracting company certainly takes a cut of every hour Google is paying for. Assuming the security guards get the same benefits as other Googlers (and they should), I would expect that Google saves very little money, or maybe even spends more; but the guards themselves should have a much more valuable pay package without the security company skimming off the top [I don't begrudge the security company, but it does seem a nicer overall solution in this case to cut out the middle man].

Note - that this sort of thing usually lasts while a company is profitable. Once things get tight (if they do), then everything is back on the table, and Security Guards, Cleaners, Kitchen Staff, Groundskeepers - basically anybody who doesn't have proprietary knowledge, training, or skills is replaced with a contractor.

I remember when my University (SFU) fired all their cleaning staff - some of whom had been working their for 20+ years and replaced them with contractors (who (ironically?) actually did a much better job for a lot less money) - students went on a mini strike, but, at the same time, the University was being forced to raise tuition to cover the bills - so they were trying to find every way they could save money possible.

This isn't always the case. Zappos had always hired people to prepare breakfast and dinner and then flipped and used a contractor for food prep and service when they moved to their new HQ in downtown Las Vegas. Zappos is definitely not tight on money and is very well run (from what I could tell).

Perhaps they're just an outlier though.

It's a sign that hr and accountants have taken over and the tail is wagging the dog

It all depends on the contract for the cleaning staff.

Around here the university did the opposite, they ended all cleaning contracts and hired their own staff with better pay. Costs went down, quality went up.

The problem was that due to idiotic (EU?) competition laws the maximum length for a cleaning contract was 2 years with a 1 year extension. So the firms worked kinda OK for the first 2 years and fucked around for the extension year since they wouldn't get renewed anyway. Quality went to shit, no one did the basic work of re-waxing the floors "the next contractor will do it" etc.

It's interesting to me that Google is doing this. I was at Microsoft when they decided receptionists weren't a core competency they wanted. They kept tightening up when was - as an STE at the time, you could see that role was not going to make the cut. I was at MSN as an SDET when the last STEs were laid off and rehired as contractors. I was back at Microsoft when they decided SDETs weren't core; we were all converted to SDEs or hired back as STE contractors.

Sure, but this is all-mighty Google. I don't see any cash issues in the mid (or long for the matter) term future.

It gives them more control over who they hire, it makes it harder (if not impossible) for the SEIU from unionize them, assuming they have to sign the employment agreement it allows them to install surveillance on any of their computers, and it will probably make for a much better experience for employees.

One of the saddest things they did during my time there was switch the TechStop folks from employees to contractors and that was, in my opinion of course, a huge mistake. Having these folks be contractors totally changed the dynamic with respect to the other employees.

The big opportunity here is to hire and train people who actually care about "Google security", versus people who care about wearing a uniform and applying for real cop jobs. Sorry if I'm going back to my blue-collar days, but I've never met a security guard who really took his job seriously. They're there mostly for show and they recognize that.

It is possible they are transitioning to a more automated force: http://knightscope.com/ (math I did came out to about $4 per hour, 24/7.) If that is the case you want a smaller number of higher quality security workers in house.

I can't speak for the Bay area, or Google, or the contracting firm, but security guards typically have a turnover exceeding 100%. Makes a lot of sense to have any firm deal with the bullshit that arises from having turnover that high.

It may be important to keep that distinction. Security should not be 'one of us' but a separate culture, or they can't do their job effectively.

Exactly, that was my experience as well. As employees they should be invested in doing a good job and that will make them better security guards.

"allows them to install surveillance on any of their computers"

I've never heard about this. Google makes employees install surveillance software on all computers, personal and work, for the duration of their employment contract?

I'm actually quite surprised by this.

Having worked as a contractor for Google, my impression is that they consider being an employee at Google as a brand in and by itself.

My contract stated several times that I was not a Googler, and I was not hired by Google and I was not allowed to say "I work for Google"and if I start a company I am definitely not allowed to send out a press release saying "Ex-googler makes new start-up to solve ..."

Well, saying that you "worked for google as a programmer" sounds a bit more impressive than you "worked for google as a cleaner", because google is a tech company. It is all about public image, so if you are a programmer then it is pretty natural your contract is stating that there is notable difference between you and, say, Sebastian Thrun in the sense of your importance for google. It doesn't seem to be necessary to say that some security guard's role in google wasn't like one of Sebastian Thrun, so why not?

Google still employs the contractor industry like most of the big tech firms in the bay area, and I'm not talking about just as cooking staff or temps.

My guess is they flipped on making security guards FTEs simply because it's been an isolated PR issue:

http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-security-guards-prote...

> I was not allowed to say "I work for Google"

Seriously? That's frankly ridiculous. Performing tasks for someone in exchange for payment seems to me like a reasonable use case for the verb "work", no matter whether your status is employee, contractor, moonlighter, intern, teenager looking for pocket money, etc. It seems impressive to me that they would feel entitled to forbid you from saying so.

Should they even have the right to do that?

That's because Microsoft cocked up big time a long time back and lost a big case over disguised employment aka permatractors that set employment law precedent.

I think the brand of being a Googler only applies to programmers and executives.

There are contract programmers inside Google, most of the Creative Lab works are produced by them.

> The August think tank report found that the median hourly wage is $14 an hour for security guards in Santa Clara County – home to Google and scores of other tech companies. By contrast, the median wage for software developers is roughly $63 an hour.

Obviously - $14/hour is quite low and there's a certain increased level of security that comes with paying guards more (it won't be so easily for them to consider alternative income sources), but does anyone really think that that gap needs to be closed completely? I think they'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that a security guards warrants equal pay with a software developer.

The value of software development is the multiplicative application of innovation / creation. Security guarding will never have that (without adjacent technological innovation.)

well unskilled labour vs overwhelmingly grad entry high skilled professional jobs works like that and devs are underpaid relative to lawyers and MD's

I worked as a contractor at Google last year as a software engineer. All of the people I interacted with who were non technical contractors, like security guards, office supplies, etc. seemed to have a great attitude and acted like they appreciated their jobs. Same comment applies to almost all of the technical contractors I met.

Unless companies need to lock in key employees, using contractors makes a lot of sense, and with the affordable health care act, one of the big reasons for wanting to be an employee vanishes. I have worked as an independent consultant for 15+ years, so I am biased in favor of flexible working arrangements.

BTW, I hope the current contracted security guards get some preference in being hired as employees.

Security "contractors" are not the same as real contractors. They are themselves employees of a different 3rd party company that "hires" them to the paying customer for a (usually much) bigger bill than the contractor's wage. The flexibility from the point of view of the customer is that they can let go such "contractor" on a wimp and expect to have a replacement lined up in a short time if needed. The 3rd party company probably manages this by swapping its employees from one customer to another, at least in the short term.

Strategically speaking, the reasons for resorting to this type of arrangement range from the legitimate (you really don't care about developing the core competencies required by the position in-house) to the borderline fraudulent (you want to hide a big fixed cost in your accounting books and make it pass as a variable cost, so your company's finances look healthier than they really are).

This wasn't mentioned in the article but this will also mean they can ride the shuttle for free (the IRS considers this a benefit with some specified dollar amount). I'm glad the security guards won't have to choose between driving or paying the "gbus fare".

The article says "more than 200 security guards". Any clue about how this compare to the number of security guards working as contractors for Google? I'm curious about whether "Security Guards" in the title means "all security guards", or "a small proportion of security guards, as an experiment".

I see many comments here be like "security is important for google, so paying guards more is a wise move". That isn't really true. If you want to keep something safe the real question isn't if your employee wants to abuse you, but if he can. Security is about being sure that damage that can be made by every single person you entrusted with access to something is reasonably low. Because if somebody can blow you up, him being your own employee and not a contractor, or paying him nice wage doesn't guarantee enough. Consider Snowden.

Now about wages. I'm not sure why I'm saying such obvious things on HN, but there's some visible ignorance in comments on that topic. Developers aren't paid more than cleaners because being developer is somehow better by itself. Wages are dictated by market, so the question is if you can find somebody who can do the same work while being paid less. Of course I don't know what specific purpose will serve these security guys hired by google, but if we're talking about something like sitting all day long watching nobody enters using other tools than his NFC card then answer is definitely yes, finding a guy who can do that is easier than finding a guy who can write efficient js or something like that.

I do think that hiring your own security staff is convenient (and I'm a bit surprised it wasn't the case before — I suppose it isn't like they are founding their own Blackwater), but it doesn't seem to be as important as some journalists are implying and sure it isn't about social equality.

> If you want to keep something safe the real question isn't if your employee wants to abuse you, but if he can.

This assumes that 100% safeguarding is something that you are 100% capable of doing. If Google had that, they may not even need security guards (hyperbole).

> Consider Snowden

In the case of Snowden, we know that he attempted to raise the issue internally. Many argue that Snowden actually did serve his drive and oath comparatively to Manning.

Drive goes into these aspects that inspire people. It suggests that autonomy and purpose matter much more than pay - and Google having greater control over this could certainly help control.

Coincidentally until this week I never saw the security people in the lift (we share a building). This week I have seen them many times inside and outside wearing Google Security logoed shirts.

Given the importance of security and worry over theft of intellectual property by accessing servers on-site, etc., I am really surprised that hi-tech firms (Google, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, ...) don't hire their own security. Also, for people that store data on Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon servers, I'd want security to be vetted by the firm (Google, etc.) that is accountable for providing the secure service.

Incidentally, this also holds true for hospitals, etc. that have secure medical data.

All these companies have security teams (not network security). Most of them are retired cops, retired detectives, sometimes these companies hire local cops for big bucks as their VP of security. But they also hire managers of security for local sites.

But at the bottom level, they have contracted out to Securitas, Guardsmark, SIS Security, etc.

Patrolling, monitoring cameras from a central site, checking locks of all doors, badging, etc--all these have been contracted out.

Hospitals are better in this aspect: they hire full timers for the bottom layer, and they also keep contract security firms. Stanford hospital is a good example: they have 70% full time security guards, and 30% is contracted out.

Maybe it was to preempt something like this. Seattle City council calling out Amazon to treat its security guards better and to let them unionize. http://www.geekwire.com/2014/seattle-city-council-amazon-sec...

Given how security conscious Google is, I'm surprised the security personnel were ever outsourced.

I am very glad to hear this, google employs (or ahem contracts) some very good security personnel. I do wonder though if the current security personnel will be converted to full employees or if they will be sent back to the contracting company ...

I wonder if they get to use 20% of their time providing security for their personal projects.

(b'dom ksh)

The median salary for software engineers is $130k??!? At Google or in all of SV???

Yeah it's the median. SV and NYC both. Have you seen what $130k gets you these days? Not much in those areas. You'd be better off at $75k in Texas.

That's preposterous. $130k gets you quite a bit in SV, even a pretty nice 1BR apartment in SF if you want it. Yes, it's more expensive to live here than most other places in the US, but saying $130k isn't enough or is even marginal or crappy is ridiculous.

$75k in Texas probably does go farther, but that's not really comparing apples to apples.

You're right that you're not starving. But someone who makes $75k in Texas, Colorado, or Georgia isn't talking about how nice of a 1BR they can get. The expectations are completely different.

You can rent a fairly nice 3+ BR house in my neighborhood for $1500. That saves you $18k per year over the apartment you referenced, for a living situation that's viable for a family. Compared to a similar-sized rental house in SV, a house here saves around $42k per year. When you account for taxes (an extra $5-10k in state taxes and around $14k in federal taxes on the higher income) you can see how $130k in SV wouldn't get you "much" compared to $75k elsewhere. And you probably wouldn't make $75k elsewhere; $90-110k is more typical for the same sort of work.

Are you sure? I used to live in MV 5 years ago. Was in a decent apartment 20 minute walk from the Google campus. The rent used to be around 1700. I checked the price for the same apartment complex a few days ago on a lark ... over 3K! 2 bedroom apartments in the same complex range from 3500 to 5K. I assure you ... Texas is cheaper than this.

Before I got my big break, I did a combo of working at Whole Foods and the Post 9/11 Gi Bill to make ends meat, and I was able to live in Silicon Valley (Mountain View and Sunnyvale) from 2008-2013. In the latter case, I was able to rent a room in a house in Sunnyvale for almost three years. I can't fathom how you spend your money if you make 130K and can't find a room in Santa Clara County. Its like...seriously, people get by with a lot less than 130K dev salaries, and I'll be blunt and say you're doing something wrong if you cant.

"A room in Santa Clara County" is fine for you. What about your spouse and two kids?

I don't see why a single, healthy guy without a lot of debt can't live quite well in the Bay Area for $130K. But, if you have 4 mouths to feed, paying a couple grand a month for student loans, starting to have old-person health problems, and/or have extended family to support, I can assure you you're not living the Zuckerbergs lifestyle on $130K.

If you have four mouths to feed, you better not expect to be treated as royalty making 130K in the Bay Area. Get your spouse to work, or just admit that you need to scale your spending habits downward.

Yes. I live in SF right now, and have friends who live in MV, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto (among other south bay/peninsula cities).

But you can easily pay for a $3k/mo apartment on $130k/yr, still have a good amount of disposable income, and still be putting money toward savings/college loans/stocks/whatever.

Even $4k/mo for rent is doable. That's $48k/yr, and if you can't live off the remainder (say $40k after taxes), my opinion is that you need to take a hard look at the crap you spend money on.

Of course Texas is cheaper than this. Not at all debating that. Money goes farther in some places than in others; this is not news. I'm merely addressing the assertion that $130k/yr doesn't get you "much", which is demonstrably false, and sounds like it was written by someone who hasn't lived here.

Whether or not you can do "better" elsewhere is a matter of preference. I personally would find the idea of moving to Texas (or a great many other places where the dollar buys you more) unappealing, regardless of what my financial situation would be there. Paying a premium to live in SF (while still sending 40+% of my software-developer salary right to savings/stocks/mutual funds every month) is worth it to me.

Your math doesn't work.

40% of a $130K salary is $52,000. $48K a year in rent brings the total up to $100,000.

You still haven't paid for food yet, or any other cost.

Assuming you're a silicon-lifeform that can subsist off of minerals leached from the ground, you'd still need a 22% or lower tax rate to make this work.

Which is to say, your math doesn't work, at all. Even assuming $3K a month in rent, your overall tax rate (remember, you're a silicon lifeform that doesn't eat) still needs to be ~31% to make it work out. This is definitely not the case in California.

Assuming you're human (and therefore need to pay for food, clothing, bills, such), you are nowhere near being able to take a $3K (much less $4K) rent on a $130K salary. The level of spending you're talking about is more appropriate for someone with a $130K income post-tax, which by California tax rates puts you in the $200-220K range, pre-tax.

Sorry, for the saving-40% figure I was talking about me, not the hypothetical person who makes $130k. I should have been clearer on that point. And I was also talking about 40% post-tax, not pre-.

Still, I'm not understanding how you think a $3k/mo rent isn't possible on $130k/yr. I personally know people who do that.

Let's be conservative and say 40% tax rate. That's $78k left. $3k/mo on rent is $36k/yr, which drops you down to $42k. If you can't eat, drink, and be merry on $42k/yr, and still save some money, I would seriously suggest you take a hard look at your priorities.

I wouldn't say that at that level you'd necessarily want to sock away 40% (again, post-tax), but that's even doable if you're living on your own and don't have dependents: 40% of your post-tax pay on $130k is $46,800. Subtract $3k/mo for rent, and you have just shy of $11k free. I'm not saying you're going to have tons of fun spending only $11k/yr on food and entertainment, but it's certainly possible. But instead dial it down to 30% or 25% or whatever. I bet at that level you'd still be saving more than the average American.

You forgot income tax. Or children. Or both.

I absolutely did not ignore income tax.

I did ignore children, fairly deliberately. If you do have kids, then hopefully there are two parents, both with income (yes, I know this isn't always the case).

Four people (two parents and two kids) will live much cheaper together than four people living on their own. Kids are expensive. I get that. That changes the equation quite a bit. I'm not particularly equipped to do that math since I don't have kids and don't know what they tend to "cost".

$130K in SV might get you a 1BR in SF, but you'll be paying close to half your take-home to do it. That's not smart or sustainable. My current salary in Boston is in that ballpark and I live in a prime location for about 25% of take-home, making about that salary.

So, I hear that touted as "conventional wisdom", but it's not particularly clear why. As long as you aren't spending beyond your means, what's wrong with allocating more money to housing? Say I want a bigger apartment, and I'm willing to drastically cut back on restaurant outings to make up the difference. How is allocating 50% to housing and 25% to food (assuming that 25% buys you healthy meals all year) less sustainable than allocating 25% to housing and 50% to food (talkin' 'bout some pretty nice food here)?

>$75k in Texas probably does go farther, but that's not really comparing apples to apples.

We're comparing cost of living in two different states. That's a perfectly reasonable comparison to be able to make.

I think it's a reasonable comparison, yes, but not solely on monetary terms. Cost of living is certainly an important part of a decision on where to live, but it is not even close to the only consideration.

Put differently: the size of house you can buy is often low on the list of considerations.

I am fairly certain that the median salary for engineers at Google is (much) more than that. If you count bonuses and RSUs, the pay package for new graduates in 2014/15 is already more than $130k.

RSUs should be counted when they vest, not when they're awarded. Otherwise you can make it sound like you're paying anyone any amount of money.

"I'm giving you a $200,000 signing bonus! Vests at $1,000 yearly for 200 years."

RSUS are awarded as $x/yr for n years, vesting starts at 12/months or sometimes less, so including them in annual figures is non- controversial, until you start seeing employee turnover at <1yr.

The only tricky part is do value then at grant day price or vest day price or some average thereof. RSUs are 0-price options

I agree with your accounting rules. The parent can be assumed to be following them, with plenty of room to spare.

Oh... That's a bit surprising, then. I didn't realize starting packages in SF has gotten so high.

Hmm? This doesn't seem impossible at all at Google. My last job in Seattle as a Data Scientist was approaching that in salary alone, and I'm not good enough to work at Google. Those who are should make about that much.

You should try London day rate for DS contractors is £700 £800 a day

You are not not good enough to work at Google.

This is a roundabout way of saying that google's hiring standards are often a total mystery

True. But I am a college dropout with no experience in formal Computer Science and my professional developer skills are quite lacking. I am good at hacking data and statistics research. Not really what they are looking for, from what I can tell.

Don't sell yourself short. I also am a college dropout with no formal Computer Science education and had limited professional developer experience and I worked at Google for 7 years.

Google's whole business is built around hacking data and statistics. You may very well be exactly what they are looking for.

I know someone with a data science degree from a top school whom google recently passed on. No idea what they may have been really looking for.

Ah well. Too late anyway. Entrepreneurship bug can't keep me pinned down! Got out of software dev as a primary business.

Serious question: are you surprised because you think that's high, or low?

I'm sure Google is much more, that's likely SV. $130K, btw, probably isn't enough for you to buy your own house - so it's not great wages.

Not everyone's goal is home ownership.

Having said that, it'd take you a while to save up for a down payment on $130k/yr (even assuming regular raises), but it's definitely doable.

There still aren't enough houses for everyone's (who wants to live in a house) goal to not be home ownership.

If you mean not everyone wants to raise a family, OK.

I'm very confused by your first sentence. If there's a shortage of something, shouldn't I not want that thing if I can help it?

I guess the EEOC is finally breathing down their necks. Funny how long companies like google can get away with it....

Vote it down if you like: it's the obvious reason Google is hiring its security guards.

We have had our security guards as employees (not contractors) since the beginning. Not sure how this is news and how this isn't the norm.

Doesn't this reduce their ability for overtime pay in certain situations?

Doubtful.[1] California has limited exemptions for overtime that can't simply be avoided by paying salary. Even a significant number of 'IT professionals' should be paid overtime. [2]

[1] http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_overtimeexemptions.htm [2] https://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/ComputerSoftware.pdf

Nope CA passed a law exempting IT professionals and M&P grades are normally always exempt even In places like France

Good move I've seen some really bad contractors

Google's getting its own army. ;-)

Naah, that's what robots are for.

For a second I actually imagined that this might be the start of what in 10 years will become Google Security Forces, people safegurading Google micronation/underwater colony/Mars establishment.

I wonder if Google has caught a contractor that was working for NSA.

I've always wondered why we outsource cleaning and janitorial staff? It's so unnecessary and cruel. Make them part of the team.

Same reason why many companies (including probably Google) outsources landscaping work even though there's work to be done every year around. The subcontracted companies have foreman and managers who are much better equipped to train people in janitorial, cleaning, and landscaping work than Google.

Whatever the motive, I applaud the move.

Perhaps the skills needed to find, recruit and manage janitorial staff are different from the skills needed to find, recruit and manage developers?

Almost every company outsources electricity generation, too.

Janitorial staff need direction and supervision. If you hire a lot of janitors in a place like Google, which has many buildings, you need to track them all, give them proper equipment/resources, and check their work.

A lot of times it's just easier (and cheaper, of course) to hire a firm that's more skilled in this work than to try and manage it all yourselves. It's one contact with a simple objective: clean the buildings. If the buildings aren't cleaned, the company can be replaced.

Often (although this might not be relevant for Google) these services are provided by the owner/operator of the building, replacing them can be tricky for all sorts of reasons, not least of which is that you may be displacing union jobs

That's strange. Google will have to go into bussines of security services. Why they just don't negotiate with the contracted security company better terms for the employees working for Google?

Probably because they couldn't find one.

>>SIS told The Journal the change was a business move on its part. “The decision to end this contractual relationship was made by SIS as part of its normal business operations and then conveyed to Google,” said SIS Chief Financial Officer Tom Seltz in an email.

Um, so who made the choice SIS or Google?

Who made the choice: Definitely, Google. On the paper, it is SIS. I worked for SIS a decade ago: yes, they are nice folks, they did not provide health insurance. They had some $120/month insurance, which covers like $10K a year--and this is not an insurance at all. That's why I did not buy that insurance.

SIS won lots of security contracts based on the price alone. Guardmark, one of its competitors, provides a good health insurance for its employees; but they can't compete with SIS, which does not provide any benefits.

Maybe it was just the impetus for the change? I'd imagine there's more than one security contractor in silicon valley.

Isn't it obvious?

SIS cannot force Google to convert some employees to full-time (nor it makes business sense for them).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com